[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y87gY7fhi5OJ35WQ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 19:30:43 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
peterz@...radead.org, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
laurent.dufour@...ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
songliubraving@...com, peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
kent.overstreet@...ux.dev, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
lstoakes@...il.com, peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 39/41] kernel/fork: throttle call_rcu() calls in
vm_area_free
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 08:18:37PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 23-01-23 18:23:08, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:46:20AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > > Yes, batching the vmas into a list and draining it in remove_mt() and
> > > exit_mmap() as you suggested makes sense to me and is quite simple.
> > > Let's do that if nobody has objections.
> >
> > I object. We *know* nobody has a reference to any of the VMAs because
> > you have to have a refcount on the mm before you can get a reference
> > to a VMA. If Michal is saying that somebody could do:
> >
> > mmget(mm);
> > vma = find_vma(mm);
> > lock_vma(vma);
> > mmput(mm);
> > vma->a = b;
> > unlock_vma(mm, vma);
> >
> > then that's something we'd catch in review -- you obviously can't use
> > the mm after you've dropped your reference to it.
>
> I am not claiming this is possible now. I do not think we want to have
> something like that in the future either but that is really hard to
> envision. I am claiming that it is subtle and potentially error prone to
> have two different ways of mass vma freeing wrt. locking. Also, don't we
> have a very similar situation during last munmaps?
We shouldn't have two ways of mass VMA freeing. Nobody's suggesting that.
There are two cases; there's munmap(), which typically frees a single
VMA (yes, theoretically, you can free hundreds of VMAs with a single
call which spans multiple VMAs, but in practice that doesn't happen),
and there's exit_mmap() which happens on exec() and exit().
For the munmap() case, just RCU-free each one individually. For the
exit_mmap() case, there's no need to use RCU because nobody should still
have a VMA pointer after calling mmdrop() [1]
[1] Sorry, the above example should have been mmgrab()/mmdrop(), not
mmget()/mmput(); you're not allowed to look at the VMA list with an
mmget(), you need to have grabbed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists